@donOld: I have to admit I am guilty for visiting this thread and reading it without comment. I enjoy reading other's ideas on what is sustainable. So I hope you continue the conversation, even if it is only three of you having it. With time your idea can become a reality if the majority also agrees with it. I will continue to read and consider what you are saying. I do this with all the threads on this site and there are many wonderful ideas floating around.

My opinion is; any idea that involves drastic change is an idea that evolves through certain transitional stages over a period of time. We need something more immediate.

I am in favor of a Direct Democracy approach for the immediate problems we face. If we get this step in place somewhere within the government we can change our country to what we want. Whatever the majority wants; but we must get the control first. Once this happens then we (all of us) will be working towards the changes needed for our sustainability.

I am researching alot trying to discover as much as I can about the depth of the corruption. There is alot happening on a daily basis now. This is where my concentration is at the moment. Please continue your conversations so I can continue to enjoy reading them.

I appologize for the interruption. Just wanted to let you know I am here supporting everyone even if I don't respond. :-)

As most people don't understand the inner workings of our current economy and financial system, and have only media soundbites and propaganda to go by, it will be very difficult to argue against what they have already been taught to believe about our current system. When people have existing ideas that they strongly believe are true, they reject any new information that contradicts or challenges those beliefs. It takes a lot more work to change someone's existing beliefs than it does to educate them about something completely new.

The establishment will attack a new party that promises only to fix the existing system ...with their experts and lies that they have already made credible through their relentless propaganda machine. Because the public believes what they have already been told about the current system, it will be easy for the establishment to fool them again and scare them with ridiculous claims and warnings about what how any proposed changes will bring tragedy and misfortune to all.

However a fresh, hopeful, totally new idea may stand a chance of breaking the gridlock of conventional thinking. Especially if people can easily see that personally they would be better off if the proposed system were in place. Presenting a clear, original solution that appeals directly and forcefully to people's own personal self-interest is our best hope. Now, more than ever before, people are ready to try something new.

@whitefeather Thanks, nice to hear that you enjoy the discussion.

@Lavant

"Now this is just how I have thought it out, its not how it must be. Is there a way to manage the resources without setting a limit on individual consumption?"

Well, you are doing exactly what the RBE-idea wants you to. You are applying the foundation of an RBE to a hypothetical society, and then using your empathy to imagine what people would do under such social conditioning. The Venus Project is merely Jacques Fresco's personal interpretation on how it would evolve.

There are actually relatively few things that an individual would consume that would be in limited supply. Food would be the biggest thing, but the nature of indoors, automated hydroponics is that it can produce food year round, and can alter the climate so that it can grow any type of fruit/vegetable locally. When on the other hand, say someone has invented a new screen-material (monitor/TV) it will only be launched once its been determined that everyone on the planet would be able to get one. I would also be relative to how good we are at recycling the old monitors. Also, if a launch of new monitors has happened only a few months before that, the new product would most likely be used as a stepping stone towards an even better one, and would instead be used for research so they can improve it. Technology improves rapidly, and it would be insane to think that every technological appliance should be replaced on a monthly basis.

I guess what I'm trying to say here, is that it's not just the resources/population ratio that is important. People would of course use common sense and many other relevant factors to distribute things.

Also, I know you know your stuff about the RBE, and my reason for saying what I did earlier was merely to help you clarify. ;)

whitefeather:

Thank you for making yourself known. I had no idea what kind of response the title of this thread would draw, and it is good to know (not just suspect) that more are following along and considering all that is being said even if they dont participate... so long as the idea is getting out, and so long as it causes people to think about it. The more people think about real change (not just politicians talk) as a real possibility, the more possible it is for those thoughts to become reality.

"My opinion is; any idea that involves drastic change is an idea that evolves through certain transitional stages over a period of time. We need something more immediate."

And I agree, we are quickly running out of what time we have left.. but all you hear or read in the news is how politicians (all over the world) are bickering over financial tangles and deficits, and trying to come up with new programs. But changes the size of what we are talking about here are as big or bigger even, than other events of change in the past.. such as Martin Luthers Reformation of the Church, opening the way for protestantism, took a long time to happen (the idea of reform began as early as 200 years before Luther was born). That's because it took a long time for the ideas of those who went before Luther to spread, and a longer time for those ideas to sink into the minds of the masses, and of course.. by Martin Luthers time, the printing press had been invented, so that was a help. Nowadays, information is easier to spread than ever, in this Age of Communication, so maybe.. just maybe, we have a chance before everything just completely collapses.

Then again, total financial collapse.. tho it would be devastating, just might enough for people to finally be willing to think a different way and try something new... it's a shame that it usually takes something really bad to happen before people make the changes in their lives that they need to make.

empty

HELLO....new person to the site here...While I understand the magnitude of the issues raised by the occupy movement, I can honestly say in earnest that I don't think most of the population does. It is my belief that if they knew what the movement was pressing for in simple concise terms..the majority of this countries Americans would be on board....it seems to me that the occupy movement is all over the map and that being in a scattered position of protest hinders the highly significant message that could be delivered. I am not being critical--just real. Maybe the occupy leadership could hold an online election to discern 3 or 4 specific platforms from which the movement could mobilize and bombard the media with a position on these 3 or 4 selected issues of protest.

As a side note--the AARP organization has really taken a wise stance with their medicare benefits on the line by recently running ads putting politicians on notice of their strength in voting numbers--and by directing their solidarity right at the politicians running for office. Their ads say--we are 5 million strong voting Americans and we will be watching you (politicians) over the next few months and you will hear from us on election day...hence if you want to keep your job--you best be considering our desires because we are the people you represent--and we are watching.

Occupy should take this same bold in your face voting agenda. We need short concise issues that the movement feels strongly about in solidarity to target as our platform issues for resolution.

Example platforms:
1) Occupy demands an immediate criminal investigation and congressional inquiry into the reasons justifying the recent us tax dollar bail outs of financial institutions
2) Occupy demands new legislation that prohibits the --currently legal--practice of insider trading by elected officials in Congress
3) Occupy demands immediate government pressure, transparency and accountability of all banks and financial institutions that received us tax payer bail out money to disclose how the tax payer money was used to renegotiate upside down loans for Americans facing foreclosure--with renegotiation intent on Americans keeping their homes
4) 3% of the foreign aid budget redirected immediately to fund US infrastructure projects that create jobs for Americans.

These are just examples!

Next, it would be wise to bombard the media with whatever selected platforms derive so that public opinion and politicians can take sides and thus be held accountable, inspired or empowered. Lastly, the movement can be--and is--identified by the 99% population characteristic--however, we are also a remarkable voting power by our sheer numbers that if reasonably flashed in the face of politicians have the capacity to bring criminals to justice via congressional inquiry into the wall street deception and good ole boy antics. The occupy movement has this capacity! It is ripe for demanding change if simple organizational functions and leadership can focus and target. Just a thought and commentary?

Well first I want to point out this is not quite on topic for this thread... but as long as Lilriane is ok with it i will give a responce anyways.(its not like the topic has been going anywhere)

From what I am to understand, we are focused on the topic of the removal of the corrupting influience corporations have over our government. There are many other things less agreed apon but i think that is one that we all agree with. It is the media that is protraying us as unorginized and "all over the map". what we need in that respect is a media that will report honestly...

As for making politicians take sides, i think that is a waste of time, they already have there own agenda and any lip service given to the "demands" of the movement would be just that, lip service to sway public opinion then never follow thru, like Obama did!

Instead of trying to get someone to say they agree why not look for someone who already agrees and their past backs up their word? Someone who is ignored by the media just as much as the movement itself.

Someone like Rocky Anderson.

Rocky Anderson supports the OWS movement, he wants to prosecute the whole Bush administration, and end the war on drugs. He says, even if it takes a constitutional amendment we need to get the corrupting influence of money out of our government!

So check him out and tell me what you think.

“the Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party”
Rocky Anderson

https://www.voterocky.org/node/14

If you're looking for a world without money, look to wild animal populations for inspiration. They hunt and gather only enough food to eat for the day. Exceptions to animals who hide away cached kills or bury nuts and so forth. Even then, the food supply does not extend very far before they need to find more.

The majority of human beings (the civilized ones) on this planet stockpile their food. They keep livestock within fences and cages. They keep storable plants, like grains and tubers, in silos and storehouses. They refrigerate. They hold onto to as large a surplus as possible.

Once more than enough food is stored away than can be eaten, a system to represent that excess energy is formed. That system is money.

If you want to get rid of money, you have to get rid of the excess food.

Going further, I don't personally see money as evil or opposing freedom. Civilizations that existed before America used money. Even Native Americans, rightly lauded today, dried food, stored plants and grains, and used shell money like wampum. Were the Lakota without freedom for drying buffalo meat? Were the Iroquois an evil empire for saving three years harvest?

Money and excess are not the source of our problem.

it is normal and natural for us to make provision for the winter months. That means stockpiling for a time. And we are not the only ones that do this as you've pointed out. It is people within Civilization that tend to stockpile things (all KINDS of things). Tribal cultures do not take more than they need from eachother or their environment. That right there tells me that humanity as a whole is not flawed as most people tend to think. It's our way of life that is flawed. During the Great Depression in the 1930s, it was money and jobs that were scarce..not necessarily resources. Those who managed to retain their wealth ate just fine.

Money in itself is not evil. It's just NOT the best system for us to use going forward. It served us well for thousands of years, but it has outlived it's usefulness. Our social and economic environments have changed, and unless our system changes it will eventually crash.

Oh, and the excess food can go to societies who have much less than us. There is PLENTY worldwide to go around.

DSMLOVE, not to be rude but I think you are quite confused. You said:

“Once more than enough food is stored away than can be eaten, a system to represent that excess energy is formed. That system is money.

If you want to get rid of money, you have to get rid of the excess food.”

So I ask a few simple questions, why does an excess of something require a system to “represent” it? Is there a system to “represent” oxygen?

You are implying that it was an excess of food that lead to the creation of currency. Where is the logic in that?

Did the Indians have an excess of food to explain the need for wampum?

How will removing the excess of food remove money? Making food scarce would make it more valuable thus reinforcing the need for money, correct?

Currency was invented to control the distribution of scarce resources. The Indians didn’t trade wampum for something there was an excess of, the trade was for things they couldn’t acquire easily themselves, and they acquired wampum by trading something that was abundant in their region to a tribe that lived where it was scarce.

This excess of resources is a new thing to us as a whole. Small pockets managed to stockpile major surpluses in the past due to the abundance of nature in the region, and they became the major powers we know today. However any shortage they experience, or their colonies like Ireland and their potato famine, were disastrous due to the lace of transportation for aid to arrive.

Now we have the knowledge to produce more food then can be consumed and the technology to transport that produce from anywhere on the planet to anywhere on the planet faster then it takes someone to die from dehydration.

Now that we have an excess of any given resource, instead of lowering the price to represent its abundance we chose to stay or even raise the price while putting the excess resource under lock and key, protect it with laws, and punish anyone who brakes these laws. But these laws are no longer enforced to ensure survival in the face of scarcity but are enforced in the name of profit due to necessity.

For example, Like lilriane said “During the Great Depression in the 1930s, it was money and jobs that were scarce. not necessarily resources. Those who managed to retain their wealth ate just fine.” There was lots of food in stores, even more in warehouses, but people still starved to death while it rotted and went to waste because they did not have the money to provide profit to the “owners” of the food.

If we got over the drive for profit and gave up the now obsolete system of resource control we call currency, we could provide for the entire planet while using less resources then we do now in our wasteful, competitive, profit driven system.

Just a late night thought about possible transitional implementations towards an RBE. What if all the fundamental resources...or commodities were the first to be rendered "free" or "common heritage goods". Resources at their most raw and basic level..such as water, electricity, raw foods and produce, gold, oil, etc to be free and once those raw materials are transformed into a useable product..which would still have cost..would be lower in cost due to the lack of cost of the base materials themselves. For instance raw foods could be free but if you wanted to go to a restaurant where someone else prepared your food the cost would be for the labor and skill of the restaurant. Gasoline (until we cease using it) would be cheaper if oil was a common heritage product.

Its past 1am here and this idea Im sure has many flaws as Im too tired to even TRY to tackle all the possible ramifications pros and cons..but didnt want to lose the thought entirely upon waking in the morning.